'tis the night before the night before, and there is still plenty stirring. the president's personal lawyer for one. rudy giuliani latest revelations have people talking, especially his comments about a prominent jewish-american, a holocaust survivor. there's also the house minority leader, kevin mccarthy, and what he is saying. debunked allegations about the fbi spying on the president's campaign. we're keeping them honest on that tonight. speaking of the president, he is talking too, and his words are really hitting the fan. >> i never understood when -- i know windmills very much. i've studied it better than anybody. i know it's very expensive. you know what they don't tell you about windmills? after ten years, they look

like -- you know, they start to get tired. you got to replace them. >> yes, windmills are also a thing tonight. and there's more. i'm erica hill in for anderson. thanks for joining us. we begin with newly released emails and the fight over weather to have witnesses at the impeachment trial. the two coming together tonight with the words of a white house budget official named michael duffey, someone senate democrats want to hear from. >> if there was ever an argument that we need mr. duffey to come testify, this is that information. this email is explosive. >> this email, the one in question, was obtained by court order. in it, mr. duffey ordered the pentagon to freeze military aid to kiev. the timing of the email also a major focus. it was sent 90 minutes after the president's controversial july 25th phone call with ukraine's president. the call, of course, that is at

the heart of the entire impeachment question. duffey writes, quote, based on guidance i have received and in light of the administration's plan to review assistance to ukraine, please hold off on any additional dod obligations of these funds. now, the line raises a number of questions, including who ordered the aid held up. but it is not the only line that stands out. quoting again here, given the sensitive nature of the request, i appreciate your keeping that information closely held. why would it need to be closely held? mr. duffey is one of four witnesses senate democrats again want to hear from. cnn's jim acosta joins us now with more on the larger impeachment setup. the president's of course at mar-a-lago, still weighing in on impeachment. what is he saying? >> reporter: he's been posting tweets saying that the house speaker nancy pelosi saying she's delaying things because she doesn't think she has a very good case. pelosi is saying, no, that's because we want a fair process in the senate.

the president has also been re-tweeting lindsey graham, who has been tweeting this evening that if democrats don't send over those articles of impeachment, perhaps they should take matters into their own hands. it's not exactly clear what lindsey graham is talking about, but i can tell you all of these delays are giving heartburn to the president's legal team and political team inside the white house. they know the longer this process drags out, the more surprises you could have like those emails you were just talking about. >> in terms of those emails, what is the white house response to those emails, beyond concerns of heardburn, of course? >> reporter: yeah, right. what they're saying at this point is there was an omb official over the weekend who put out a statement saying it is not fair to tie these emails to the president's phone call because they had an interagency phone call one week before the president had that phone call with the leader of ukraine, basically explaining that a hold was going to be put on this ukraine military money. but there's no mistaking just how amazing the coincidence would be that 90 minutes after the president has this phone

call with the leader of ukraine, that michael duffey, a top official at omb, is sending a directive to the department of defense saying, we are freezing this money now. i mean you just have to suspend some disbelief to think that the two things aren't connected at this point, but marc short, the vice president's chief of staff was saying, listen, the money was released to the ukrainians. that seems to be their go-to defense. >> the timing certainly is interesting in terms of that email. robert blair, one of the four witnesses democrats want to dcal is getting a new position. >> reporter: this was announced earlier this evening during a holiday week, so that's always interesting when you see that timing. but the white house is saying that robert blair, who is a senior adviser to the acting chief of staff mick mulvaney is going to be overseeing te telecommunication strategy and looking at this turn to 5g technology. i will tell you it is interesting because if you

contrast what is happening with robert blair with some other administration officials who did testify, he is certainly getting, you know, the gold star treatment during this holiday season. and what is most interesting about robert blair, of course, erica, is that he is one of the four witnesses that the senate minority leader, chuck schumer, would like to see testify during a senate trial. at this point it does raise the question, is the administration programs handing over a little goody to robert blair to entice him to remain quiet and not testify during a senate trial. obviously the white house administration would say no to that. but when you look at these things and how they've played out, obviously the administration officials who go up to capitol hill, they don't exactly receive the same kind of treatment that robert blair is receiving this week right before christmas. erica? >> appreciate it as always. thank you. >> you bet. joining us now, cnn chief political correspondent dana bash, cnn legal analyst elliot williams, and cnn senior political analyst david gergen.

as we look at all of this, dana, do you have any sense that this impeachment standoff -- i don't think anybody is holding their breath that anything is going to happen over the next two weeks of this holiday break. but that being said, is there a sense that it will actually work itself out sometime soon, even in the early days of january? >> yes, there is a sense that it will work itself out. how it will work itself out, that's, you know, to be determined. and the reason is because it's in the democrats' interest to try to find a way to start this trial for many, many reasons because if you listen to mitch mcconnell, his argument is why are they holding it because if they think that by holding it, it's going to make any negotiate and give something away that i don't want to give away or maybe agree to witnesses that i don't want to agree to, that's not going to happen because no skin off my back. if we don't start a senate trial, we'll move on to other

things, confirm more trump judicial nominees for example. having said that, that is his argument, and there's a lot to be said for that. there are also republicans who are running for re-election, and if they don't win, he will not be senate majority leader anymore, and they need to answer to their constituents about whether and why there is a fair trial. so there are pressure points on both sides here to get something accomplished when it comes to this process. >> for democrats, fair trial obviously equates to more witnesses. it equates to evidence. david, you've heard republicans say before that in fact the trial here is not a fact-finding operation, that they are going to render judgment on the case that was passed on to them from the house. what do you make of that? >> well, i think we've gotten into such a mess now, it's hard to get all of this untangled, isn't it? i do agree with dana that we're ultimately going to get, i think, a settlement. i don't think it's in the interest of either side to let this play out too long. and for the democrats in particular, it starts to look

too cute after a while. but i do think with these documents, two things become apparent. one is here's a single memo that has been held back, and it came through a different channel. it became public, and it's a story. it's a piece of the puzzle we didn't have. and what the document story is all about now is what's missing from the case. the things that the democrats couldn't get because of the stonewall. the documents they couldn't get. the witnesses they couldn't get. and, you know, i think it strengthens their case that this is not entirely on the up and up in terms of the republicans, the way they're playing hardball. i think that's pretty important to it. and the second thing is that the facts are important, and to have a trial which doesn't turn on facts is bizarre. >> there are a number of people who would agree, as you know, most of them democrats. as we look at this elliot, you

were counsel to the senate judiciary committee under senator schumer. now, we saw the letter from him today. he also came out later today and said that he could and would push for a vote. how much leverage does he actually have right now? >> so the minority actually has a tremendous amount of leverage in the senate. so he does have some leverage. this gets back to dana's point. what this all comes down to is how much pain can senator schumer and the democrats cause for those four or five or six senate republicans who are in tough races because to some extent -- and frankly this gets into mitch mcconnell's interest as well. his goal is to protect the senate. it's not to protect the president of the united states. he keeps his job regardless of whether donald trump is president. so, you know, what senator schumer can do is force difficult votes and put the cory gardners of the world and the susan collinss of the world -- these are senators that are up for re-election in bluish or purple states, and force them to

have to take votes on, for instance, this michael duffey question, this individual who wrote this email that is actually quite damning if you read what's out in the public record. make them go on the record and have to say that they don't want this individual to testify. and nor schumsenator schumer car that. >> when you spoke to senator dick durbin on state of the union yesterday, he made it clear. he didn't think anybody should be saying how they would vote at this point. that ship in many cases, as we know, as sailed. at this point, aside from a small handful of senators, there's a pretty good sense of where everyone stands. >> there is. that's why what elliot was just talking about is so key. yeah, what senator durbin, who by the way was there 21 years ago and a voting senator, and back then is when i started covering the hill. there were many, many more senators. the vast majority of the senators said, we're impartial jurors. we're not going there. it has changed dramatically,

which is the point he was trying to make. but when it comes to the trial, once they are in the trial, assuming senator schumer doesn't get what he wants, which is an agreement to have these witnesses before they start -- it's hard to imagine that happening. but let's just assume that is the case. you are going to see really, really important votes if the democrats are able to put up a vote for bringing michael duffey to testify. that is a 51-vote threshold, so it's hard to see republicans who are on the bubble saying, no, we don't want to hear from somebody who could shed more light on what's happening. it's possible, but it will be a very tough vote for them as opposed to the final vote, which is whether or not to throw the president out of office or acquit him. that's an easier argument for them to make back home, which is, i don't think what he did was right, but i don't have enough facts. there's nothing i can do, and it's up to the voters to decide in november. >> yeah.

>> david, go ahead. did you want to add something? >> yeah, i just want to say a couple things. i think a lot's going to depend on what the various senators, the key senators hear back home. this next two weeks is going to be pivotal in that regard. and there is, you know, coming out of the impeachment process, there was a widespread view especially in the press that the winds were flowing against the democrats, that they had lost some momentum. there are new polls out in the last 24 hours that show that wind is maybe shifting slightly in their direction. the president's poll numbers are down. the people who want to see the president not only impeached but removed is up slightly. that's important as we go forward here because the dynamics are going to be so important. but i want to make one other quick point, and that is if the democrats are able to get those handful of senators on the republican side to vote to bring witnesses like duffey, there is going to be enormous pressure from republicans then to bring

some additional witnesses they want like the whistle-blower. and that's going to turn it into a circus. >> if you notice one thing that you're hearing -- a talking point you're hearing democrats use is, all we need is four votes for a fair trial. i heard brian schatz from hawaii making that point the other day. they're going to keep hitting that point. they regard it if they can get -- because ultimately four votes gets them to 51. that's the simple majority of the senate that would allow them to start calling some of these witnesses. but david is absolutely right. you start getting into questions of then do republicans start asking for hunter biden to come testify? then do we end up with the same kind of circus that the house of representatives so commonly is? >> we will be watching and waiting to see. dana, stick around. there is some rudy giuliani news to talk about. that coming up later in the hour. namely, a remarkable interview he gave recently. >> up next, one of the impeachment jurors, senator chris van hollen on what kind of trial he wants to see and just

how far he thinks his fellow democrats should go to get it. also tonight, is the president blowing smoke about wind power, and does he really know more about the subject than anyone? listen and decide for yourself tonight on "360." ou're ready for what comes next. at fidelity, we make sure you have a clear plan to cover the essentials in retirement, as well as all the things you want to do. and on the way, you'll get timely investment help to keep you on the right track, without the unnecessary fees you might expect from so many financial firms. because when you have a partner who gives you clarity at every step, there's nothing to stop you from moving forward. who gives you clarity at every step,

the holidays are here and so is t-mobile's newest, most powerful signal. and we want to keep you connected with the new iphone 11. so t-mobile is giving you an iphone 11 on us for each new line of unlimited. for yourself, your family or your small business. keep everyone connected and hurry into t-mobile today, to get up to 4 iphone 11s on us. only at t-mobile.

we're talking tonight about the fight over impeachment witnesses and what a trial in the senate will look like. senators, as you know, will swear an toeth to be impartial jurors as you likely also know, republican majority leader mitch mcconnell has already said -- and these are his own words -- quote, i'm not partial about this at all. he was asked about this morning on fox news. >> do you think chuck schumer's impartial? >> no. >> do you think elizabeth warren is impartial? >> no. >> bernie sanders is impartial?

let's quit the charade. this is a political exercise. >> for mitch mcconnell, it's a political exercise. other senate republicans have also said as much, lindsey graham most notably. shortly before air time, i spoke with another senator, maryland democrat chris van hollen. senator van lochollen, i want t ask you about what we just heard from senator mcconnell. are you fully impartial heading into a senate trial? >> erica, yes, i am because i'm willing to listen to all the evidence before rendering a final verdict in this case. do i think that the house has made an overwhelming case for impeachment as of this point in time? yes, i do. but i also have heard the president say that he wants to have a big trial and he wants to have witnesses talking about how he's not guilty of the offenses he's been charged with. and i'm absolutely willing to listen. at the same time, that's why it's so important that we have

witnesses that apparently the president or the president's team and mitch mcconnell don't want to call. everybody should be able to make their case in a true trial that's fair in the senate. >> well, in terms of having those witnesses, senate leader mcconnell also said this morning, quote, we haven't ruled out witnesses. we've said let's handle this case just like we did with president clinton. fair is fair. what are your thoughts on that? are you okay with handling this in the exact same manner that it was handled for president clinton? >> well, every trial is different. you know that. i think the american public knows that. and i think it's very reasonable to seek some assurances right up front that there will be witnesses. there were witnesses in the clinton trial. there were three deposition witnesses. there were lots of witnesses in the previous trial for president an dpru johnson. and so there's no reason why senator mitch mcconnell can't just tell us up front that he's going to agree to call these

very important fact witnesses from the white house who have direct knowledge of the impeachment charges that are being made against the president. >> as you know, some of the witnesses that the president himself has referred to include former vice president biden, hunter biden. if mitch mcconnell does acquiesce and does say, yes, we're going to have witnesses, if there is a push for the bidens, are they fair game? >> so as you know, the biden issue is a total red herring. it's been well documented that there is no truth to the allegations, and i haven't heard any republican senators talk about calling hunter biden or vice president biden. look, if senator mcconnell wants to put that in the mix, that's obviously his choice. but he hasn't done that, and we have said that we want witnesses. we've named four fact witnesses that are not, you know, some, you know, wild goose chase that

has already been disproven. we're talking about witnesses in the white house, including michael duffey. and we just learned over the last few days that michael duffey, within 90 minutes of president trump's phone call with president zelensky, sent that email to the pentagon withholding the critical u.s. military assistance to ukraine. and at the same time, asking them to keep it quiet, hush-hush. so clearly they understood that this was inappropriate, and michael duffey is exactly the kind of witness that we need to hear from in the united states senate along with the documents, along by the way with the original transcript of the phone call. >> mm-hmm. >> rather than the memo form. >> as opposed to the rough transcript that the white house released. in terms of those emails, because of that foia lawsuit, those were specifically referenced by senator schumer today in his letter to his fellow senate colleagues where he called for evidence to be admitted. he also then later today said that he could and would push for

a vote. do you know of any of your republican colleagues who would get behind that vote and potentially join democrats in that vote for certain witnesses and evidence? >> well, i think it's going to be awfully hard for them to explain to their constituents why they're voting against calling fact witnesses and trying to get documents, right? if you're going to have a fair trial, every american understands that means that everybody gets to put on their case. that means you get to call witnesses. so in voting against witnesses, if they choose to vote against witnesses, it's pretty clear that they're afraid of the truth. and that's been the question all along. if the white house and president trump have nothing to hide, why are they so scared about presenting those documents and those witnesses? >> senator chris van hollen, i appreciate you joining us. thank you. >> good to be with you. thank you. a lot more ahead on this

christmas eve eve, including the house saying it still needs to hear from former white house counsel don mcgahn while raising the possibility of additional articles of impeachment. (chime) (shaq) magenta? i hate cartridges! not magenta! not magenta. i'm not going back to the store. magenta! cartridges are so... (buzzer) (vo) the epson ecotank. no more cartridges. it comes with an incredible amount of ink that can save you a lot of frustration. ♪ the epson ecotank. just fill and chill. available at...

a president who abuses power. and obstructs justice. the impeachment of donald j. trump. he was supposed to protect our constitution. not trample on it by asking foreign countries to undermine our democracy for his personal political gain. trump broke his oath to america. members of the house and senate must now do their constitutional duty. if you agree, sign our petition at need to impeach.com need to impeach is responsible for the content of this advertising. ♪ ♪ everything your trip needs, for everyone you love. expedia.

for everyone you love. when it comes to using data, which is why xfinity mobile is a different kind of wireless network that lets you design your own data. choose unlimited, shared data, or mix lines of each and switch any line, anytime. giving you more choice and control compared to other top wireless carriers. save up to $400 a year when you switch. plus, unwrap $250 off a new samsung phone. click, call or visit a store today. and i like to question your i'm yoevery move.n law. like this left turn. it's the next one.

you always drive this slow? how did you make someone i love? that must be why you're always so late. i do not speed. and that's saving me cash with drivewise. my son, he did say that you were the safe option. and that's the nicest thing you ever said to me. so get allstate. stop bossing. where good drivers save 40% for avoiding mayhem, like me. this is my son's favorite color, you should try it. now save even more with new lower rates. the house of representatives believes it still needs to hear from the white house counsel -- former white house counsel don mcgahn saying his information could be relevant to possibly additional articles of impeachment. in a court filing today, house lawyers said the impeachment investigations didn't end with last week's votes. it's the latest turn in a drawn-out legal battle over mcgahn's possible testimony. cnn's senior justice correspondent evan perez joins us now.

so, evan, lawyers for the judiciary committee are saying a second impeachment could be necessary? >> could you imagine the tweets from the president given his reaction already from the current impeachment debate if he were to be the first president to be impeached a second time? that's certainly what the democrats are raising here in this court filing. nobody really thinks that the democrats are going to pursue this, but what they are saying is simply that just because they barely mentioned the mueller investigation and the information from don mcgahn in the current articles of impeachment that are pending before the senate or will be pending before the senate doesn't mean that this is all over. they say they're going to keep investigating this. what's at stake here, erica, is simply this. the white house says that the president has the right to give absolute immunity to his close aides, including people like don mcgahn. the house -- and by the way a judge has already said that's not so, that the president is not a king and that he has -- his aides have to respond and

perhaps himself, he would have to respond to a house subpoena. so we'll see where the courts will land on this. >> mm-hmm. >> in the coming weeks. but, again, this is a fight, as you said, has been going on for about eight months. >> give us a better sense in terms of the timing here for a final decision about whether don mcgahn is actually going to testify. what are we looking at? >> well, yeah. so we expect that there's going to be some arguments in the coming weeks in january. but, again, we don't know when the appeals court will make a final ruling as you kind of point out. it's beyond don mcgahn, right? we're talking about other people like john bolton who the president says he is protected by absolute immunity. so i think there's a big, big question here that the appeals court and perhaps even the supreme court will eventually get to hear about these important witnesses and whether they get to just say, forget about congress. we don't have to respond to their subpoenas. >> so much riding on that as we wait and watch. evan perez, appreciate it. thank you.

oregon democrat earl plumen nower says the house should take its time for sending the two articles of impeachment. he joins me now from portland. congressman, good to have you with us tonight. >> thank you. >> give us a sense. the notion here that the house, as i was talking about with evan, based on these filings, could recommend new articles of impeachment. how real a possibility is that? >> well, we are, as we keep saying, in uncharted waters with this president, his reckless behavior, his denial of the norms that everybody else has adhered to, challenges to the court. we don't actually know what he's going to do next. but the fact is that the house of representatives continues to control the two articles, has not yet submitted them. speaker pelosi is trying to find out what the rules of the game are going to be.

but this doesn't stop what the house judiciary committee and other committees can do going forward. there's nothing to stop supplementing the record. i think there may well be court decisions that come down. we may see at some point there are tax returns that are made public. and overall one of the things that's fascinating about the public opinion, even people who aren't yet convinced that donald trump should be removed through impeachment overwhelmingly support the notion that this should be a fair process. >> in terms of that process, before the actual impeachment vote, you tweeted, quote, rather than allow for a sham trial in the senate, we should keep gathering information and let the process ripen. based on that statement, based on what we just heard from you, do you think the house rushed at all to vote on these two articles of impeachment? should she have waited and collected more evidence?

>> no. i think it was clear on the two articles. there was overwhelming evidence to support them. >> mm-hmm. >> and candidly if you watch what the republicans did in response, they didn't dispute the facts. they were just playing process. one of their arguments is that there's too much hearsay evidence. but ironically it's the republican administration that refuses to make the witnesses available who could confirm this. they can't have it both ways. >> you say they can't have it both ways. as we're waiting to see what happens obviously in the senate, you have made it clear, as you've said, you support speaker pelosi waiting to hand over those articles until she sees how things will play out in the senate. how much leverage, though, do democrats have? how long do you think this can go on? >> well, i mean part of it is in terms of it's like every day that goes by, there's new

information. what we just found out that the coordination with the white house, the telephone call made within 90 minutes of the president's conversation with the ukrainian president, telling people to be quiet, that it's not supposed to be made public -- this is, i think, suspicious at the least. there is going to be more information that trickles out, and frankly this president is just acting unhinged. look at what he did last week in michigan with a two-hour rant insulting the memory of a revered public official, john dingell. this is a person who doesn't take any pressure well, and i think the speaker plays it

right. she has her obligations to the house and to the process. she takes it seriously, and frankly donald trump actually doesn't match up very well against nancy pelosi. he doesn't deal with strong women, and there's no stronger woman in america than nancy pelosi. and clearly he can't handle her. >> well, we will watch as this continues to play out. i do want to get one more take. you brought up these emails which were released over the weekend. they were referenced by senator schumer today in his push for evidence, for witnesses. is it your sense that those emails will have an impact on republicans in the senate? >> you know, i don't know. but i think there is a sense that they're picking up from people at home that they want this process to be fair. and when we have new evidence come out raising questions, i think it argues for being able to get that on the table, to

take the time to do it right, and to have a process that respects getting the facts out. i think that this is something that republicans would do well to heed because the majority of the public, as i said, the overwhelming majority of the public favors this process being fair. and when you have the chairman of the judiciary committee, the leader for republicans in the senate saying they've already made up their mind, they don't care about the process, they don't want to hear anymore, that is troubling, i think, for any independent-minded american. >> congressman blumenauer, appreciate your time tonight. thank you. >> thank you. up next, why the house minority leader insists the fbi spied on president trump's election campaign back in 2016 and what the facts are.

grandpa, can you tell me the story again? every family has their own unique story. give your family the chance to discover theirs this holiday season, with ancestry. as we noted at the top of

the program tonight, house minority leader kevin mccarthy is repeating the widely debunked claim that the fbi spied on president trump's election campaign in 2016. here's what he said on fox news yesterday. >> well if you pause for one moment and read this i.g. report by horowitz, here's the fbi. they broke into president trump -- at the time candidate trump's campaign, spied on him,

and then they covered it up. it is a modern-day watergate. they broke into his campaign by bringing people into it. they have been trying to cover it up for the whole time. >> mccarthy then tweeted out that video clip, and here's what's really matters. we have to point this out. what he says isn't true. if in fact you did read that report, you would know the department of justice inspector general said the exact opposite, that there was no political bias involved in the fbi investigation of the trump campaign and that the fbi did not try to recruit either confidential informants nor did it attempt to send any informants in trump campaign headquarters or trump campaign spaces. let's get some perspective now from two republicans. former pennsylvania congressman charlie dent and scott jennings, a former aide to president george bush. both are cnn political commentators. scott, as you hear those comments from kevin mccarthy, what do you think? is it possible he actually believes the words that are

coming out of his mouth, or is he trying to get a message to the president that he is loyal? >> well, i think a lot of republicans after reading the horowitz report and after seeing the rebuke that the fisa court issued to the fbi in the wake of the horowitz report, a lot of republicans are concerned about the way the issues regarding the trump campaign investigation were handled. i mean the investigation by any fair reading of these documents was riddled with errors. all of the things that happened that were uncovered by the horowitz report cut against the trump campaign. it wasn't like it was a system that was making errors going one way or the other. they were all cutting against the trump campaign. and chris wray, the fbi director in the wake of all of this has said i've got 40 fixes i have to implement. if something requires 40 fixes, it's not working right. and so i think what mccarthy is talking about is just the general belief by republicans that there was a system in place here, and even though there may have been good reasons to look

in some things -- >> but that is totally different than saying the report itself found -- i mean he says if you read the report, you'll see that it says the fbi spied on the trump campaign. that's not what the record said. yes, it did say there were errors made, and, yes, there were definitely problems that needed to be addressed. but it didn't say those things, scott. do you think he really believes it? >> well, look, i think it's semantics. they were clearly looking at the trump campaign. they were clearly looking at people affiliated with the campaign even if they weren't directly on the payroll. you can call it investigating. he's going to call it spying. to me it's all semantics. the fact is the fbi was looking at people and they did it in a way that the horowitz report and now the fisa court have said was not appropriate. that's what republicans are so angry about. >> semantics are well coming up a lot these days. congressman, when you look at all of this, it is remarkable. things are always going to be spun in a certain way based on where you fall in the political spectrum.

it's a little bit different in this day and age. when you listen to what we're hearing from kevin mccarthy and you couple that with this reporting in "the new york times" over the weekend about the deference that we're seeing among republicans and specifically republicans in congress to the president, i just want to read part of that to get your take on it. they write in this piece, if he does not enjoy the broad admiration republicans afforded ronald reagan -- he being the president -- he is more feared by his party's lawmakers than any occupant of the oval office si since at least lyndon johnson. when you hear comments like that from kevin mccarthy, from others, what do you make of them? >> well, it's pretty clear to me that many republicans, particularly republican leaders, they've gone full in with donald trump. they see it to their advantage to be closely embracing him. now, i think by so fully embracing trumpism, they're creating problems, though, for

their own members, particularly in the suburbs. trumpism is not playing well in the suburbs, and republicans have been getting wiped out in the suburbs. so i think the real debate that republicans are going to need to have someday is what is this party going to look like after donald trump? is trumpism going to die when donald trump leaves office? this whole notion of nativism, isolationism and protectionism, loyalty to a man. i mean is the party going to get serious about halting this demographic death march that it's on right now? i mean we've got to become a party that's more inclusive, that's more socially tolerant, that embraces free markets, and that is more constructively engaged internationally. i think we have to get our heads right on this. by fully embracing donald trump as so many have, i think they're ignoring the real political problems that we faced in the elections of 2017, '18, and '19. >> scott, do you see any republicans addressing though issues? >> i think the way republicans are viewing this presidential

campaign is you have two parties. one's run by donald trump, and one's run by largely the left wing i think fringe of the house democratic conference. and they're going to have a nominee soon who is going to have to adhere to a lot of their principles. these two parties are heading in vastly different directions. if you're a republican out there, what you're being asked to do is rebuke your party, rebuke your president, and just give over to a direction of vision, a leftward lurch that you don't agree with in any way. does that mean you agree with everything donald trump's doing or any republican is doing all the time? no. of course no human being as a politician is going to satisfy people 100% of the time. but when you look at the two broad visions, there's no choice. that doesn't mean you are 100% in love with everybody in the republican leadership, but it certainly means you like that direction and that vision far

more than the other side. so i don't think you're going to see any republicans peeling away from the president or from their candidates because they know the alternative would take the country in a direction they just can't support. >> scott jennings, congressman charlie dent, appreciate it. thank you. up next, the case of donald j. trump versus the windmill. if your glasses aren't perfect, we'll fix them. so will we. no we won't. don't forget to use your vision benefits before they're gone. now in-network with vsp. visionworks. see the difference.

the holidays are here and so is t-mobile's newest, most powerful signal. and we want to keep you connected with the new iphone 11. so t-mobile is giving you an iphone 11 on us for each new line of unlimited. for yourself, your family or your small business. keep everyone connected and hurry into t-mobile today, to get up to 4 iphone 11s on us. only at t-mobile.

president trump is continuing his war against wind power, namely wind turbines although the president calls them windmills. and it's not a new thing either. in fact you could add them to the list of comments about light bulbs, dishwashers, toilets. here's what the president said over the weekend while talking to a conservative student group. >> we'll have an economy based on wind. i never understood wind. you know, i know windmills very much. i've studied it better than anybody. i know it's very expensive. you know, we have a world, right? so the world is tiny compared to the universe. so tremendous, tremendous amount of fumes and everything. you talk about the carbon footprint. fumes are spewing into the air. they're noisy. they kill the birds. you want to see a bird

graveyard? you just go. take a look. a bird graveyard. go under a windmill someday. >> so apparently that's where you find a bird graveyard. now, listen, it's true that turbines do kill birds, hundreds of thousands of them. but while we're talking about facts because they're important, more birds are killed by cats. almost a million and a half a year or actually by other more birds are killed by cats or energy sources such as coal, oil. and studies also show that wind power actually has the smallest carbon footprint compared to other sources. the president's hatred for wind turbines seem to be tied to his battle oaf them near his golf course in scotland. as for the claim he studied the topic better than anybody over >> i know more about isis than the generals do. i know more about courts than any human being on earth. >> i know more been steel workers than anyone who has ever

run for office. nobody knows more about construction than i do. >> i know more about drones than anybody. >> i can tell you more about caterpillar tractors than the people that work there. >> i know more about debt than practically anybody. i love debt. >> he knows, just ask him. let's check in with chris to see what he's working on for "cuomo prime time" at the top of the hour. hello, my friend. how are you? >> how are you? the best to you and the family. thank you for everything you do and more importantly, the way you do it. i'm trying to get you a little background on this, other than a personality mix about the president saying things he can't back up. ludite is someone incompetent when using new technology, came into the vogue in the 1800s, the back story which may or may not be true is a young man named ned lud, who might have broken an expensive knitting machine in england because he didn't like

that machines were taking over. that is what the president tries to channel. it's almost like being about flat earth. but as you said, we're about facts and we have a new timeline that makes the situation painfully clear with ukraine. >> we're looking forward to that. all the best to your family as well. still to come on "360," what rudy giuliani is saying and why so many people are now talking about it.

president trump's tv story rudy giuliani takes time to sit down with a reporter in person recently. it was titled "a conversation with rudy giuliani over bloody marys at the hotel." they covered many topics including whether a holocaust survivor is truly jewish. she wrote this. visions of cross examining congressional democrats and witnesses made famous during the hearings, something he hance done since the 90s, satisfied his desire for revenge i'm great at it. it what i do best as a lawyer. dan a bash has had her own conversations with rudy giuliani.

she's had her own unique conversations. i know you spoke with him reasonly. the idea that he would come back and lay low, i don't think anyone was expecting it. do you think there's a plan, dare i say strategy for the conversations he's having and the people he's choosing to have them with? >> no. the only thing i know or that he has said about it is that he has one but there's no evidence of that yet. laying low, of course you're right, that's not his m.o. at all. he wanted everybody to know that he went to ukraine, he wanted everybody to know that he claims that he unearthed a lot of things that we don't know but when it comes to, well, what is it? it's in a safe, it's in a vault, i'm not going to tell you yet,

we're working on it. >> we'll have to wait and see. he made some comments talking about liberal billionaire george soros, "he's hardly a jew, i'm more of a jew than he is. he went on to say my attitude is f it. we can fill in the f. as we're seeing the public giuliani and getting a sense of who he is in these conversations, it's certainly in sharp contrast to america's mayor and the person that many saw in the wake of 9/11. has he really changed or is it or is it more that it's just coming out? >> it was probably there. after the "access hollywood" tape came out, no one would go on television except rudy giuliani. and the george soros thing, he was trying to separate himself from the notion that saying something bad about george soros is anti-semitic.

that's why he said "i'm more of a jew than he is," which didn't come across the way it was intended. if i look at george soros and the attacks on him across the internet, across conservative media and right wing groups, it is reminiscent of the anti-semitic attacks that have been going on for millennia about world domination and things like that. so i think that's what he was trying to do, separate himself >> it will be interesting to see. apparently as long as he's got the backing of the president -- >> he says he does. >> he says he's got is it for now. until then we'll wait and watch. your phone may be ringing again soon. the news continues. i'll hand it over to chris for "primetime." >> thank you very much. merry christmas. i am chris cuomo. welcome to "prime time." new evidence of what i hope is getting to be pretty obvious by now. a clear timeline of what happened to aid to ukraine and when.

we also have a primetime exclusive on a central player into the investigation into these rogue players around rudy giuliani. we have a newish name and a scary game afoot. now, this is it for me until after christmas so happy hanukkah, blessed nights for you all, blessed christmas. show the love to everyone around, we need it now. we thank all of you for the gift of your time and attention. what do you say? let's get after it. tonight we can clearly say that we know that the decision to withhold military aid money from ukraine was made at practically the same time that this president of working the phones to get what he wanted from ukraine.